19-01-2021, 01:35 PM
19-01-2021, 01:35 PM
19-01-2021, 02:46 PM
The main reason is that every third "word" in the Voynich MS ends with the character y , and the words ending -us in a Latin text aren't anywhere near as frequent, by an enormous margin.
19-01-2021, 03:21 PM
(19-01-2021, 02:46 PM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The main reason is that every third "word" in the Voynich MS ends with the character y , and the words ending -us in a Latin text aren't anywhere near as frequent, by an enormous margin.
This is definitely not a reason for this conclusion
19-01-2021, 03:43 PM
Helmut, could you expand on that?
Just stating it isn't very helpful.
Are you ware of any meaningful text where every third word ends with -us?
My argument is basic information theory, and it is particularly strong since we have such a long text.
Just stating it isn't very helpful.
Are you ware of any meaningful text where every third word ends with -us?
My argument is basic information theory, and it is particularly strong since we have such a long text.
19-01-2021, 04:36 PM
Rene.
your fundamental mistake is the assumption that you have the structure of a 'normal' text, where normal statistisc used on texts are applicable, whatever the language is, in the whole ms.. I think that is wrong. I am mostly workng on the Herbal texts at present, since I believe that the texts in the different sections in the ms. are to be treated differently and I think the best material you can compare the Herbal texts with are the text in things like Circa Instans or Mesue or the Vocabularius ex quo or even better the later texts of something like the Latin Hortus sanitatis, not something like the Bible or Shakespeare. And there you can have accumulations of similar endings ad infinitum, especially if someone has made notes in the sense of , In XY there is this, in YZ it is missing and so on: That is what I think the structure of the Herbal texts is. These does not mean that the same rules apply to the rest of the ms., I am not even sure or rather have doubts that all the glyphs mean the same everywhere.
Just two remarks on the side:
(1) I think the worst mistake made since the ms. was found was to treat it as 'abnormal', not as a common medieval Latin ms.m written in a 'normal' 15th c. script
(2) I think the 9 in the ending of words (and in some other places?) is a -um - abbr., more common would be something similar to a 3, but the scribe/author does some odd things
I can do some more expanding, it is a question of time.
your fundamental mistake is the assumption that you have the structure of a 'normal' text, where normal statistisc used on texts are applicable, whatever the language is, in the whole ms.. I think that is wrong. I am mostly workng on the Herbal texts at present, since I believe that the texts in the different sections in the ms. are to be treated differently and I think the best material you can compare the Herbal texts with are the text in things like Circa Instans or Mesue or the Vocabularius ex quo or even better the later texts of something like the Latin Hortus sanitatis, not something like the Bible or Shakespeare. And there you can have accumulations of similar endings ad infinitum, especially if someone has made notes in the sense of , In XY there is this, in YZ it is missing and so on: That is what I think the structure of the Herbal texts is. These does not mean that the same rules apply to the rest of the ms., I am not even sure or rather have doubts that all the glyphs mean the same everywhere.
Just two remarks on the side:
(1) I think the worst mistake made since the ms. was found was to treat it as 'abnormal', not as a common medieval Latin ms.m written in a 'normal' 15th c. script
(2) I think the 9 in the ending of words (and in some other places?) is a -um - abbr., more common would be something similar to a 3, but the scribe/author does some odd things
I can do some more expanding, it is a question of time.
19-01-2021, 05:03 PM
Helmut,
thanks for the explanation.
One can always argue about the validity of statistics, but the problem with this one (the very high fraction of words ending in y ) is that it is so far off from any reasonable number for Latin words ending in -us or -um or even combined, that there is no chance for a match.
Just from memory, if the language were Italian, then a word-final -i would be a lot closer in terms of frequency.
Maybe Marco remembers better.
thanks for the explanation.
One can always argue about the validity of statistics, but the problem with this one (the very high fraction of words ending in y ) is that it is so far off from any reasonable number for Latin words ending in -us or -um or even combined, that there is no chance for a match.
Just from memory, if the language were Italian, then a word-final -i would be a lot closer in terms of frequency.
Maybe Marco remembers better.
19-01-2021, 05:43 PM
Rene,
I don't say your statistis or statistical methods or what are wrong or invaliid or something, they are not applicable to the material you have in the ms..
About 90% of the ms. is readable when you look at it as anormal ms., but you get very different results from the material used in the statistical work, it is no wonder you have results from Nahuatl to Mandarin
I don't say your statistis or statistical methods or what are wrong or invaliid or something, they are not applicable to the material you have in the ms..
About 90% of the ms. is readable when you look at it as anormal ms., but you get very different results from the material used in the statistical work, it is no wonder you have results from Nahuatl to Mandarin
19-01-2021, 06:11 PM
Hi Helmut,
We're veering OT here, but you have often made this claim that the Voynich is mostly readable.
I am really curious, if that is the case, would you share any of what you can read?
If you are indeed able to read 90% of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. for example I would be extremely grateful if you would enlighten us about what it says.
We're veering OT here, but you have often made this claim that the Voynich is mostly readable.
I am really curious, if that is the case, would you share any of what you can read?
If you are indeed able to read 90% of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. for example I would be extremely grateful if you would enlighten us about what it says.
19-01-2021, 07:05 PM
VViews.
f. 1r is a special case.
But I will give you an example, f. 9r, line 10 (because it is short and I was looking at it this afternoon)
cum [EVA t] cca2 o2 aui[cenna] cc[EVA k]cum(?)2
This needs some explanation, of course. We know that Medieval scribes used abbr. as tachygraphy, there are better examples from the 16th c. e.g. the Tischgespräche of Martin Luther. One of te peuliarities of the V. scribe is, that he leaves off abbr. strokes. I think thee 'gallows' are sigla. I think EVA t is an M and EVA k an N (I am not do sure of that). Albertus is A., de vegetabilibus, Avicenn, the Canon, book 2, Simplicia, Mesue not M. senior, but filius, Ps. Mesue or Grabadin or one of the other related works like the Antidotarium Magnum
That gives us
cum/with M[esue] contra/against this a[lbertus] Auicenna contra [N......]cum(?)2
I think my reading is correct, I am not so sure of all of my interpretation, I am checking some evidence, whih means some of this is premature.
I surly don't mind strong comment and the administrators moving this somewhere else
f. 1r is a special case.
But I will give you an example, f. 9r, line 10 (because it is short and I was looking at it this afternoon)
cum [EVA t] cca2 o2 aui[cenna] cc[EVA k]cum(?)2
This needs some explanation, of course. We know that Medieval scribes used abbr. as tachygraphy, there are better examples from the 16th c. e.g. the Tischgespräche of Martin Luther. One of te peuliarities of the V. scribe is, that he leaves off abbr. strokes. I think thee 'gallows' are sigla. I think EVA t is an M and EVA k an N (I am not do sure of that). Albertus is A., de vegetabilibus, Avicenn, the Canon, book 2, Simplicia, Mesue not M. senior, but filius, Ps. Mesue or Grabadin or one of the other related works like the Antidotarium Magnum
That gives us
cum/with M[esue] contra/against this a[lbertus] Auicenna contra [N......]cum(?)2
I think my reading is correct, I am not so sure of all of my interpretation, I am checking some evidence, whih means some of this is premature.
I surly don't mind strong comment and the administrators moving this somewhere else
19-01-2021, 09:50 PM
(19-01-2021, 02:46 PM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The main reason is that every third "word" in the Voynich MS ends with the character y , and the words ending -us in a Latin text aren't anywhere near as frequent, by an enormous margin.
I'm not qualified to say if Rene is correct or not. But I appreciate that the probability to be right is very high. Why? The affirmation "Voynich character [font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif] y is equivalent to termination -us in Latin" (the contrary of Rene's assertion) hide several hypotheses not proved yet: [/font]
1. The MS is written in Latin
2. The Voynich groups of symbols are words
3. The Voynich symbols are letters and/or abbreviation signs.
Each of those hypotheses have a probability below 100% (yet) that will considerably reduce the probability for y to be -us. If just one of the hypotheses are wrong (probability equal to zero), the discussion remains without object.
This is not intended to be a confirmation of Rene's affirmation based on frequency analysis, but it is another approach heading in the same direction.